test

Zero Emissions Air Car, 125 miles on $2.00 air

Page 2 of 2 [ 21 posts ] Go to page Previous 1, 2

Previous topic | Next topic

yesplease
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 28 Dec 2006
Age:34
Posts: 554

09 Mar 2008, 4:24 pm

JohnnyCarcinogen wrote:

Actually, I meant that the engine that is powered by compressed air would turn an air compressor at the same time, in the same way a car engine that uses a battery continually recharges said battery via alternator. Basically the air compressor would continually fill the air tank with air as it was being used to power the engine.

[youtube]http://youtube.com/watch?v=yJJrjDI5xSQ[/youtube]

V001
Toucan
Toucan

Joined: 27 Jul 2007
Age:44
Posts: 283
Location: New Mexico USA

09 Mar 2008, 6:41 pm

This car is not zero emmissons. You still have to use a coal/gas/nuclear power plant to power the compresser. Very low emmissons would be a better term. Remember there is no free lunch. The cost in money is not even important. The point is to get the carbon output much lower and cleaner air too.

SuedeIII
Blue Jay

Joined: 19 Feb 2008
Age:41
Posts: 79
Location: Dallas area TX

09 Mar 2008, 7:06 pm

I'm a Red Green fan and hadn't seen that....

JohnnyCarcinogen
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 29 Jun 2007
Age:29
Posts: 789
Location: Missouri, USA

10 Mar 2008, 8:30 am

SuedeIII wrote:

JohnnyCarcinogen wrote:

Oh I got ya. Sorry if it seemed as if I was confused or making fun...

Your car engine example doesn't apply. The engine isn't running directly from the battery, it's using fuel and converting it to other forms of energy.

What you're trying to say , I think, is more akin to an electric motor turning a generator that's providing the power to the motor.

If things were 100% efficient at energy conversion... i.e. no friction, resistance, heat... then that concept works. But there's always losses. Your compressor would consume more air than it produced.

Hence the silly little perpetual motion vid... :wink:

JohnnyCarcinogen wrote:

If that cleared the air, good. If it didn't, DAMN.

Nah, I didn't think you were making fun.
I used the car engine example because without electricity, the car simply cannot run - i.e., there is no spark to ignite the combustion used to power the car. Nevertheless, it's not the main power source.
Your point about the electric motor turning a generator was more along those lines, yes.

Obviously it would consume more air than produced, but maybe, just maybe, it would raise the mileage of this air-car.

Perpetual motion can't exist anyway.